Opinion · United States District Court

UNITED STATES v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN HARTFORD RAILROAD, (S.D.N.Y. 1959)

United States, Plaintiff, v. N.Y., NEW HAVEN & HARTFORDRAILROAD Co., Tri-Continental Fin. Corp., A.C. Allyn andCompany, Inc., Am. Transp. Enters., Inc.,Equitable Sec. Corp., Carl M. Loeb, Rhoades Co., TheRobinson-Humphrey Co., Inc., & John W. Clarke Co., Defendants., 175 F. Supp. 873 (United States District Court, S.D. New York. 1959)

Type
Opinion
Court
United States District Court
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1959-06-18
Topic
general

UNITED STATES v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN HARTFORD RAILROAD, (S.D.N.Y. 1959) 175 F. Supp. 873 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN and HARTFORDRAILROAD COMPANY, Tri-Continental Financial Corporation, A.C. Allyn andCompany, Incorporated, American Transportation Enterprises, Inc.,Equitable Securities Corporation, Carl M.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed UNITED STATES v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN HARTFORD RAILROAD, (S.D.N.Y. 1959). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

UNITED STATES v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN HARTFORD RAILROAD, (S.D.N.Y. 1959)
175 F. Supp. 873
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN and HARTFORD
RAILROAD COMPANY, Tri-Continental Financial Corporation, A.C. Allyn and
Company, Incorporated, American Transportation Enterprises, Inc.,
Equitable Securities Corporation, Carl M. Loeb, Rhoades Co., The
Robinson-Humphrey Company, Inc., and John W. Clarke Co., Defendants.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
June 18, 1959.
S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., U.S. Atty. for the Southern District of New York, New York City, for the United States, by Morton S. Robson, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City.

William T. Griffin, New York City, for New York, New Haven Hartford Railroad Co.
McGOHEY, District Judge.
This unusual motion was, as appears on p. 13 of the transcript of the argument on file, joined in by the defendant New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company.

It is conceded, and I independently find, that there is no genuine dispute of fact. The facts and the issue of law raised by the motion are precisely those set forth and decided on a motion by other defendants in this case for summary judgment in their favor, which was granted. D.C.,170 F. Supp. 562. For the reasons there stated, the instant joint motion by the plaintiff and the defendant New York, New Haven Hartford Railroad Company for summary judgment in favor of the latter, is herewith granted.

So ordered.